KAMM, William v. Regina [2007] NSWCCA 201

KAMM, William v. Regina [2007] NSWCCA 201

The appeal failed because the amendment to count 4 was within ss.20-22 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, did not materially alter the issues, and did not require the jury to be resworn. The jury note about alleged coaching did not show misconduct, prejudice or pre-judgment; the trial judge's strong directions were sufficient and the jury was to be taken as having followed them. The verdicts on counts 1 and 4 were open on the evidence, including the complainant's evidence, the appellant's letters, and evidence undermining A's account. The sentence on count 4 was within the sentencing judge's discretion, reflected a different level of criminality, and was not shown to be excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Indictment During Trial' 'jury Oath and Arraignment' 'application to Discharge Jury' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'indecent Assault' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 16' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing' 'appellate Law'] ['amendment of Indictment During Trial' 'jury Oath and Arraignment' 'application to Discharge Jury' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'indecent Assault' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 16' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in permitting amendment of count 4 during the defence case and whether the appellant had to be put in charge of the jury again or the jury resworn.' 'Whether the jury should have been discharged after jurors reported observing one defence witness allegedly coaching another defence witness.' "Whether the trial judge's directions about the jury note were adequate to avoid unfair prejudice." 'Whether the verdicts on counts 1 and 4 were unreasonable having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether the sentence imposed on count 4 was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the amendment to count 4 was within ss.20-22 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, did not materially alter the issues, and did not require the jury to be resworn. The jury note about alleged coaching did not show misconduct, prejudice or pre-judgment; the trial judge's strong directions were sufficient and the jury was to be taken as having followed them. The verdicts on counts 1 and 4 were open on the evidence, including the complainant's evidence, the appellant's letters, and evidence undermining A's account. The sentence on count 4 was within the sentencing judge's discretion, reflected a different level of criminality, and was not shown to be excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted, and appeal against sentence dismissed.']